What:  BC Weather Year in Review for 2011: An Introduction to PCIC Climate Analysis and Monitoring presented by Faron Anslow, Climatologist, Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium
When: Wed. February 15, 2012; 3:30 – 4:30 pm
Where: Lower Level Boardroom (Room 002), University House 1, University of Victoria
A live webcast will be available at www.pics.uvic.ca/broadcast.php

What:  Why We Disagree About Climate Change presented by Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia, UK
When: Wed. February 15, 2012; 5:00 – 7:00 pm
Where: Fletcher Challenge Theatre (Room 220), SFU Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings St., Vancouver BC
A live webcast will be available at www.pics.uvic.ca/events.php.

What: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars presented by Michael Mann, Director, Earth System Science Centre, Penn State University
When: Sun. February 19, 2012; 6:00 – 7:30 pm
Where: Fletcher Challenge Theatre (Room 220), SFU Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings St., Vancouver BC
This event is presented in partnership with the David Suzuki Foundation.
A live webcast will be available at www.pics.uvic.ca/events.php.

Visit PICS during Family Science Days – February 18 and 19, 2012 at the Vancouver Convention Centre as part of the AAAS 2012 Annual Meeting to learn more about our new, interactive short course series and other initiatives.

For more information on upcoming and past events, visit www.pics.uvic.ca/events.php.

Other events  of interest this month include:

What: Communicating Climate Science with the Union of Concerned Scientists presented by Brenda Ekwurzel, Climate Scientist and Assistant Director of Climate Research and Analysis, Union of Concerned Scientists
When: Mon. Feb. 20, 2012; 3:30 – 4:30 pm
Where: Room 126, Halpern  Centre, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby BC
This events is sponsored by the Climate Impacts Research Consortium.

What: Coastal Communities Forum presented by the University of Victoria and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
When: Mon. Feb. 27; 8:30 am – 5:00 pm
Where: Senate Chambers, University of Victoria
Presenters include PICS Executive Director, Tom Pedersen.
For more information and to register for all or part of this free event, contact Jennifer Guest at jsguest@uvic.ca.

What: Environmental Stewardship: Difficult Decisions Connecting Energy, Water, Waste and Food presented by the BC Water & Waste Association, APEGBC, PICS and the Pacific Energy Innovation Association
When: Tues. Feb. 28; 8:45 am – 4:15 pm
Where: SFU Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings St., Vancouver BC
The keynote address will be presented by PICS Executive Director, Tom Pedersen.

What: The Greenest City Action Plan presented by Sadhu Johnston, Deputy City Manager, City of Vancouver
When: Wed. Feb. 29, 2012; 12:30 – 1:30 pm
Where: Room 1600, SFU Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings St., Vancouver BC
This event is part of the SFU CarbonTalks series.

A recent article in the Canadian Journal of Water Resources offers a discussion of flooding and how a new approach is required to help mitigate the increasingly fatal risks.

Authors Matthias Jakob and Mike Church explain that river and coastal floods, in an average year, kill over 25,000, affect 520 million people, and render 3.2 million homeless, with an annual cost to the world economy of $60 billion US dollars. In Canada, we spent $2 billion on damages from flooding in the 20^th century.

The article states that “flood management aims to reduce harmful impacts to people, the environment and the economy of a flood-prone area, and “risk” combines consideration of the flood hazard and its consequences. But those consequences are not all, or at least, not systematically quantified and so full appreciation of flood risk remains, in most instances, unknown.”

The Canadian approach to flood hazard management to date has largely focused on the “design flood,” a concept that serves as the foundation of design public infrastructure and flood protection.  The design return period, which provides scientists with a sense of the discharge, is fixed. As discussed in the ACT Water Climate Change Adaptation and Water Governance report, climate changes mean that we are now dealing with a loss of stationarity – i.e. extreme weather that is extending well outside the coping range humans have established as the best and worst case scenarios we have to manage.

As a result of this fixed “design return period” based on historical data that is fast becoming obsolete, both flood plain development, and flood risk itself, have simultaneously increased, posing greater risks.

The authors call for continuous risk-based adjustment of flood response approaches that balances the long term changes in risk associated with flooding levels (see Figure 2 in the paper). Some European countries are moving to a risk-based flood management approach, which is an alternative to the hazard-based approach that we currently use in Canada.

Called the Quantitative Flood Risk Assessment (QFRA), this approach evaluates the likelihood and consequences of flooding and reflects possible combined contributions to flood risk of various operational and hydrologic factors. The risk-based approach differs from the hazard-based in that it offers ways to identify locations of high risk that occur due to increases in the vulnerabilities and consequences of a flood. This approach can also help decision-makers evaluate other flood mitigation alternatives, and define thresholds for the tolerance of flood risk.

A number of studies are currently underway in British Columbia to better understand the potential benefits of QFRA.

A key message from an international symposium on flood defence held in Toronto May 2008 stated that appropriate investment to reduce flood risk, and the use of resources for flood disaster prevention, offers significant economic benefits, and will save numerous lives, prevent property damage and promote social stability.

The article by Jakob and Church also validates ACT’s 2009 report on Climate Change Adaptation and Extreme Weather [PDF]. Recommendation 3 of this report calls for local governments to assess both their current vulnerability to extreme weather (such as floods) and the risks posed by climate change, and use risk management as a framework to prioritize actions targeted at climate-related risks.

Jakob and Church offer recommendations focused on planning and systems adjustments and prevention of flooding, one of which includes a routine inclusion and regular update of analyses of the effects of climate change on the duration, frequency and magnitude of future floods for all high river levels.

Please read the full article for more details.

March 8th, 7:00-900 p.m.
Segal Room #420, SFU Vancouver (515 West Hastings St.)
Free to the public

This town hall-style meeting will feature brief presentations on coastal hazards from a visiting group of top Canadian experts, and offer the public an opportunity to engage on the challenges we face and possible solutions.

Speakers (tbc):

• Dr. Gordon McBean Policy Chair, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
• Dr. Hassan Virji, Director, START, Washington DC
• Dr. Slobodan Simonovic, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Western Ontario
• Dr. Jim Davies, Professor of Economics, University of Western Ontario
• Dr. Linda Mortsch, Senior Researcher, Environment Canada Adaptation and Impacts Research Division
• Dr. Rob Lannigan, Professor, Ecosystem and Human Health, University of Western Ontario

For more information on ACT visit http://act-adapt.org/

The Adaptation to Climate Change Team (ACT) brings leading experts from around the world together with industry, community, and government decision-makers to explore the risks posed by top-of-mind climate change issues and identify opportunities for sustainable adaptation.

The PICS News Scan is a weekly summary of the major climate-change related science, technology, and policy advances of direct relevance to the BC provincial and Canadian federal governments and more generally to Canadian businesses, government and civil society.

Complementing the news scan is the PICS Briefing Note Service. This service provides timely and concise analysis, as well as suggested policy action, on issues related broadly to BC climate change mitigation and adaptation.

This week’s Climate News Scan includes:

Research Theme I: The low carbon emissions economy

• EU begins process to regulate carbon emissions from shipping
• California passes new car emission regulations

Research Theme II: Sustainable communities

• Achieving zero: delivering future-friendly buildings
• UK climate impact report outlines risks posed by climate change

Research Theme III: Resilient ecosystems

• Big trees face uncertain future

Research Theme IV: Social mobilization

• An illustrated guide to the state of sustainability

What:  Why We Disagree About Climate Change presented by Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia, UK?
When: Wed. February 15, 2012; 5:00 – 7:00 pm?
Where: Fletcher Challenge Theatre (Room 220), SFU Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings St., Vancouver BC
A live webcast will be available at www.pics.uvic.ca/events.php.

What: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars presented by Michael Mann, Director, Earth System Science Centre, Penn State University
When: Sun. February 19, 2012; 6:00 – 7:30 pm
Where: Fletcher Challenge Theatre (Room 220), SFU Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings St., Vancouver BC
A live webcast will be available at www.pics.uvic.ca/events.php.

What: The Greenest City Action Plan presented by Sadhu Johnston, Deputy City Manager, City of Vancouver
When: Wed. Feb. 29, 2012; 12:30 – 1:30 pm
Where: Room 1600, SFU Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings St., Vancouver BC
This event is part of the SFU CarbonTalks series.

For more information on upcoming and past events, visit www.pics.uvic.ca/events.php.

Other events of interest:

What: Communicating Climate Science with the Union of Concerned Scientists presented by Brenda Ekwurzel, Climate Scientist and Assistant Director of Climate Research and Analysis, Union of Concerned Scientists
When: Mon. Feb. 20, 2012; 3:30 – 4:30 pm
Where: Room 126, Halpern Centre, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby BC
This event is sponsored by the Climate Impacts Research Consortium.

DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (only in England…) demonstrated the enormous influence a national government can exert on all levels of a country’s policies by funding this extraordinary undertaking, which, in the true spirit of adaptation, will be renewed every five years.

Among the key risks the CCRA identifies, in the unlikely event the UK took no further action, are:

• Hotter summers present significant health risks. The CCRA projects that without measures to reduce the risk, there could be between 580-5,900 additional premature deaths per year by the 2050s. The Department for Health launched a Heatwave Plan in 2004 and update it annually to provide advice and support for people vulnerable to hotter weather.
• Increasing pressure on the UK’s water resources. The CCRA projects that without action to improve water resources, there could be major supply shortages by the 2050s in parts of the north, south and east of England with the greatest challenge in the Thames River basin. Defra published a Water White Paper last year which includes a package of measures to address water supply shortages, and to ensure the water industry is more resilient to future challenges.
• The risks of flooding are projected to increase significantly across the UK. New analysis for England and Wales show that if no further plans were made to adapt to changing flood risks, by the 2080s due the effects of climate change and population growth annual damages to buildings and property could reach between £2.1billion – £12billion, compared to current costs of £1.2billion. Defra has introduced a new method of allocating funding for flood defences so that more communities will benefit from flood protection, and the Department is working with the ABI to ensure that flood insurance remains widely available after the current agreement between Government and insurers expires in 2013. As part of these discussions, Defra is considering whether there are feasible, value for money ways of targeting funding support to those at highest flood risk and less able to pay.
• The number of days in an average year when temperatures rise above 26 degrees C is projected to rise from 18 days to between 27-121 days in London by the 2080s. This could mean greater demand for energy to cool buildings and more heat related illnesses.
• Increases in drought and some pest and diseases could reduce timber yields and quality. Projected drought conditions could mean a drop in timber yields of between 10% and 25% by the 2080s in the south east, driving up timber costs. Pests and diseases, which thrive in warmer conditions, may also pose an increasing threat, such as red band needle blight – which causes loss of foliage and can lead to tree death. Defra has published a Tree and Plant Health Action Plan and committed £7million to further research into plant diseases.

The CCRA also highlights opportunities for the UK that climate change could present, including:

• Opening of Arctic shipping routes. The melting of Arctic sea ice could lead to the opening up of new container shipping routes and improved trade links with Asia and the Pacific.
• Milder winters may result in a major reduction in cold-related deaths and illnesses. Currently, cold weather results in between 26,000 and 57,000 premature deaths each year in the UK. By the 2050s, a reduction in these figures of between 3,900 and 24,000 is projected to occur due to increasing average winter temperatures. This would particularly benefit vulnerable groups, including those with existing health problems.

• Opportunities to improve sustainable food production. Sugar beet yields are projected to increase by 20-70% and wheat yields by 40-140% by the 2050s due to longer growing seasons if water and nutrients remain available. A warmer climate presents opportunities to grow new crops such as soya, sunflowers, peaches, apricots and grapes, while new markets may open up overseas for British grown produce.

The CCRA evidence will be used to develop a National Adaptation Programme (NAP) that will set out timescales for the actions government will take to meet the challenges of climate change.

Climate change impacts will affect hydrological systems as well as energy production and distribution. Compounding these challenges is the fact that we need water to produce energy and vice versa – a confluence known as the “energy-water nexus”. This presentation outlines these impacts and current examples, and explores responses for government and the insurance sector, as well as ways to communicate and collaborate on these issues.

Speaker Bio: As executive director of ACT, the Adaptation to Climate Change Team at SFU, Deborah Harford is responsible for development of the initiative’s vision and its partnerships with the public and private sectors, as well as coordination and management of the program. She also directs and produces ACT’s policy recommendations for adaptation strategies at all levels of government, as well as communication of the program’s outcomes.

Through Deborah’s efforts, ACT has created networks between local, national and international climate change research practitioners, NGOs, industry representatives, all levels of government, First Nations groups and local communities. Deborah’s work with ACT has gained her national recognition as a resource for those seeking information on climate change adaptation and practical coping strategies.

Hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as fracking, involves drilling deep into underground rock and injecting chemical-laden pressurized water to allow gas and oil to escape. The environmental ramifications of fracking are extensive, including the paving of access roads over environmentally sensitive lands, impacts on aquatic ecosystems, and growing links with seismic activity.

Larry Brown, Chair of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University, explains that it may not be the fracking process itself, but the wastewater disposal portion of these drilling operations, that are connected to an increase in seismic activity. When high-pressure wastewater is injected into disposal wells, it “greases” the wheels of a latent earthquake process that is just waiting to be triggered.

ACT released its Climate Change Adaptation and Water Governance report in October 2011, authored by eminent Canadian water expert, Bob Sandford. One of the report’s recommendations states: “Governments at all levels (in Canada) must recognize the importance of groundwater, understand and value its role in creating a sustainable future for Canada.” Groundwater in the Canadian context is a valuable source of drinking water for many communities.

Groundwater contamination and unpredictable seismic activity are two pressing long-term consequences of fracking that we cannot afford to neglect. These issues beg the question: If we were to value water the same way we do oil, would we be tempted to continue using it in environmentally destructive ways?

Moreover, if people answer yes to this question, is it really worth injecting pressurized water into the ground when this process increases the risk of earthquakes?

In a twist that deepens the complexities of the impacts of “global warming,” a new study featured in Science Magazine reports that the warmer-than-average summers it is causing may be linked to colder and more extreme winter weather in the Northern Hemisphere.

The general consensus among climate scientists is that global average temperatures have been rising since the 1800s, with more extreme warming evident in the past 40 years. However, winters in the Northern Hemisphere have actually become colder on average in some places, including southern Canada, the eastern US and northern Eurasia, for instance England’s record setting cold streak in December 2010.

The study, authored by Judah Cohen and colleagues, examines climate and weather data to estimate Eurasian snow cover, which they speculate may have been – and may continue to be – a trigger for colder and more extreme winters in the Northern Hemisphere.

Increased autumn snow cover in Eurasian regions such as Siberia, the authors say, could strengthen a semi-permanent high-pressure system that reinforces a climate phenomenon called the Arctic Oscillation, which steers frigid air southward to mid-latitude regions throughout the winter.

Rather than show a direct causal relationship between warm summers and colder winters, the study presents a compelling set of facts that will enable climate scientists to examine these trends in future studies. The researchers suggest that climate cycles such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation do not accurately explain regional cooling trends experienced in the Northern Hemisphere over the past couple of decades.

In summary, by developing a better understanding of autumn snow cover variability and incorporating such data into climate models, scientists may be able to better predict winter weather forecasts in the Northern Hemisphere.

This data may also deepen our comprehension of the complex phenomenon of global warming, including the fact that it may be more helpful to refer to it by the term used by US President Barack Obama’s chief climate scientist John Holdren: “global climate disruption,” as people are less confused by weather extremes when it is framed this way.

ACT released its Climate Change Adaptation and Extreme Weather report in September 2009. The report, authored by Dr. Gordon McBean, comments that climate change adaptation in smaller communities will be more effective with access to current, downscaled climate modelling and monitoring. If autumn snow cover variability leads to regional cooling in parts of Canada, decision-makers can use this data to better prepare, protect and safeguard Canadian communities against the impacts of extreme weather.

Proposals are invited that address this theme through one of the following categories:

a) Scientific Evidence:  What are our sources of evidence for global, regional, and local climate impacts? What methods and resources do we use that can be shared with others to help them construct knowledge useful to their regions and communities?

b) Ecosystem Impacts:  How are specific ecosystems being managed to reduce or divert the impact of global or regional climate change effects?  What lessons can be learned from studies of successful and unsuccessful interventions?

c) Human Impacts:  How do we conceptualize the dual roles of humans as agents of climate change and as victims of climate change impacts?  What are the results of climate change in developed and developing worlds?  In agricultural and urban communities?   Across different types of geological, political, and social environments?

d) Framing Responses:  What initiatives, resource management and educational strategies can we design to address the environmental, human, and societal impacts of climate change?  What roles do politics and government policy play at the local, regional, international, and global levels?  How can we predict and prepare for the social, political, and legal ramifications of new initiatives?

Proposals for paper presentations, workshops, posters/exhibits, or colloquia are invited.  The deadline for the next round in the call for papers (a title and short abstract) is 07 February 2012. Future deadlines will be announced on the conference website after this date. Full details of the conference, including an online proposal submission form, may be found at the conference website.

Presenters may choose to submit written papers for publication in the fully refereed International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses.  If you are unable to attend the conference in person, virtual registrations are also available which allow you to submit a paper for refereeing and possible publication, as well as access to the Journal.

Whether you are a virtual or in-person presenter at this conference, we also encourage you to present on the conference YouTube Channel. Please select the Online Sessions link on the conference website for further details.  We also invite you to subscribe to our monthly email newsletter, and subscribe to our Facebook, RSS, or Twitter feeds at http://www.Climate-Conference.com

According to the authors, the UN’s recent Human Development Report states that there are already an estimated 700 million internal migrants—those leaving their homes within their own countries— worldwide, a number that includes people whose migration is related to climate change and environmental factors.

While the blog post is targeted toward responses in the US, it includes startling facts from other nations. India, for example, will contribute 22 percent of global population growth and have close to 1.6 billion inhabitants by 2050. The authors argue that these demographic developments are certain to spark waves of internal migration across the country.

In Africa, concerns are widespread, with the Nigerian government in 2010 referring to climate change as the “greatest environmental and humanitarian challenge facing the country this century,” demonstrating that climate change is no longer seen as solely scientific or environmental, but increasingly as a social and political issue, cutting across all aspects of human development.

In light of these challenges, the authors recommend that the global community and the US create a sustainable security situation designed to deal with climate change, migration, and conflict. Their recommendations include:

• Develop strategies to strengthen intergovernmental cooperation on transboundary risks in different regions of the world
• Ensure better information flows and more effective disaster response for early-warning systems
• Support the best science to expand our understanding of specific circumstances such as desertification, rainfall variability, disaster occurrence, and coastal erosion, and their relation to human migration and conflict
• Identify regions most vulnerable to climate-induced migration, both forced and voluntary, in order to target aid, information, and contingency-planning capabilities
• View migration as a proactive adaptation strategy for local populations under pressure due to increased environmental change

The fourth bullet, on identifying vulnerable regions, has received a lot of attention in international development and economics. Some economists, for instance Berkeley’s Edward Miguel, support strategies like Rapid Conflict Prevention Support, which provides agriculture-dependent countries suffering temporary income drops due to poor weather or commodity price declines with immediate funding relief to avoid conflicts from breaking out.

The challenges facing those who have been forced to move and in doing so have lost their cultural and spiritual attachments to their sense of place are enormous. Support services and innovative employment schemes will be key, as will housing options and education.

In Canada, we may see Inuit and other northern communities displaced as permafrost melts and they experience a huge influx of people ready to do business as the Northwest Passage becomes ice-free. Our country may become a destination for millions of international environmental migrants who have lost their homes and livelihoods due to extreme weather and coastal erosion. Pests and new health risks may displace communities here and abroad.

ACT will study climate change adaptation and population displacement as its seventh session in 2013. The time is coming for Canada to prepare for this new reality at all levels of government, so that we can seize opportunities, as well as offset the problems that may arise.

The Australian black-tip shark has been mating with the common black-tip (its global counterpart) to create a hybrid shark. Intrigued scientists at the University of Queensland and James Cook University describe this phenomenon as truly unprecedented and even as “evolution in action.”

The implications of this development are significant for those studying climate change impacts and their effects on biodiversity. The Australian black-tip shark can only live in tropical waters, but its hybrid offspring have been found 2,000 kilometres down the coast in cooler seas. This may suggest that the species has found a way to adapt to cooler waters to ensure its survival as sea temperatures rise around Australia due to climate change. A number of additional climate-driven factors may be attributed to such species migration, including ocean acidification, the increase in ocean acidity caused by uptake of excess carbon dioxide.

While some aspects of the hybridization process remain a puzzle, scientists say they there is no doubt that the species is adapting, and as a result has become more resilient to the impacts of climate change.

The results from the article draw a parallel to the findings and recommendations of the ACT Climate Change Adaptation and Biodiversity report. This report, released in 2009 and written by ACT’s first policy author, former BC Deputy Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, Jon O’Riordan, found that all types of species are vulnerable to climate change, and their resilience to climate impacts may require a change in resource management techniques. Please click here [pdf] for the summary report.

A major recommendation outlined in the ACT report is that ecosystems, like water resources, cross jurisdictional boundaries. To maintain ecosystem resiliency, the report recommends that all levels of government in BC make a transition to an ecosystem-based approach to resource management on a terrestrial and watershed basis. This could improve management, provide better information and allow scientists to observe changes in ecosystems more carefully, to ensure that species are protected in light of changing climate conditions.

Just as the hybridization of the black tip shark in Australia will affect its environment, the dynamics and uncertainties of climate change are altering ecosystems, changing migration patterns, evolutionary traits and challenging species resiliency with mixed results. Decision-makers can help the capacity of scientists to observe these changes, and stimulate a variety of measures to help species adapt to climate change.

An ecosystem-based approach integrates the management of land, water and ecosystem resources in a way that promotes long-term conservation and sustainable use. This approach could be considered by jurisdictions around the world as they too witness changes in their ecosystems, such as the hybridization of sharks.

POLIS Project on Ecological Governance presents WaterSustainbilityProject

Register now for a a cutting-edge “unconference” on collaborative watershed governance!

The event, “A Water Gathering: Collaborative Watershed Governance in BC and Beyond – Solutions Forum,” will take place January 26 to 27, 2012 at UBC Robson Square, Vancouver.

The goal of this gathering is to provide participants with practical knowledge and skills for developing and maintaining collaborative processes, and to build new and strengthen existing networks. Participants will identify the skills essential for collaborative engagement and the necessary steps for realizing new forms of governance. Drawing on successful stories of change, the gathering will focus on what can be done and how to do it.

The POLIS WSP is helping organize and deliver the event, hosted by the Pacific Business and Law Institute and the Summit Institute. For more information or to register call 604-730-2500 (local) or 877-730-2555 (toll free) or visit www.pbli.com/933.

Bursaries are available and the application form can be downloaded at the bottom of this page.

Event Brochure

Bursary Application Form

OCT 4, 2011     Coordinated national and regional water conservation guidelines are required to address the detrimental impact climate change is having on Canada’s water system, according to Simon Fraser University’s Adaptation to Climate Change Team (ACT).

“The days when Canadians take an endless abundance of fresh water for granted are numbered,” warns Bob Sandford, lead author of ACT’s new report Climate Change Adaptation and Water Governance.  “Increasing average temperatures, climate change impacts on weather patterns and extensive changes in land use are seriously affecting the way water moves through the hydrological cycle in many parts of Canada, which is seriously impacting water quantity and quality.”

“If Canada doesn’t become a water conservation society, water security in many parts of this country will be compromised.”

The report calls for a dramatic reform of water governance structures in Canada by all levels of government to meet the new challenges posed by a changing climate, and sets out 12 broad-based recommendations to help protect Canada’s fragile water supply.

Climate change is causing increased weather instability, leading to more frequent, deeper and persistent droughts, as well as more intense rainfall and flooding across Canada. This results in greater property damage, higher insurance costs and a greater infrastructure maintenance and replacement deficit nationally.

Today, half of every dollar paid out by insurance companies is for water damage related to extreme weather events, which will continue to increase unless government and planners undertake the deep reforms necessary to manage water differently.

The growing economic impacts of climate change on Canada were confirmed by a national study released last week by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). According to NRTEE, the costs of climate change could range from $5 billion per year in 2020 to between $21 billion and $43 billion per year in 2050, depending on global greenhouse gas emissions and domestic economic and population growth.

“Canada is coping with climate change, not adapting,” says Sandford. “Our primary response to climate change has been focussed on reducing emissions. While such action is critical, it is inadequate by itself.  Current and projected atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will result in continued climate change regardless of our success in reducing emissions. As well as cutting emissions, Canadians need to adapt to the current and anticipated effects of climate change, which requires more effective management of our precious water resources.”

Water policy in many parts of Canada has not kept pace with changing political, economic and climatic conditions. The last federal water policy was tabled in Parliament over two decades ago and has never been fully implemented. And today, less than 20 percent of Canada’s groundwater sources have been mapped.

One of the key challenges limiting effective water resource management in Canada is jurisdictional fragmentation, as legislative power over freshwater is divided between the federal government and the provinces, producing a complex regulatory web that spans First Nations, municipal, regional, provincial and federal orders of government. This has resulted in serious policy and information gaps contributing to a lack of legally enforceable water quality standards and contributing to the decline of surface and groundwater monitoring, as well as water research in Canada.

The complexity, fragmentation and lack of coordination of water policies in Canada creates policies that are often inconsistent with respect to drinking water quality standards, ecosystem protection, allocation rights and climate change adaptation, concludes the Climate Change Adaptation and Water Governance report.

“The reform of water governance structures in Canada is essential if we want to successfully manage and protect our water supplies and minimize climate-related impacts on our environment, our economy and our society,” says Sandford.

Climate Change Adaptation and Water Governance Recommendations

• The federal, provincial and municipal governments establish national and regional water conservation guidelines that values water appropriately and promotes its wise use and conservation
• Governments at all levels formally allocate water to meet nature’s needs and ensure its use is consistent with sustaining resilient and functioning ecological systems
• Strengthen and harmonize flood protection strategies nationally
• Government at all levels should formally support the design and sustainability of water supply and waste disposal infrastructure based on ecological principles and adaptation to a changing climate, with special attention to First Nations communities
• National and regional water monitoring needs to be improved to provide reliable, accessible, up-to-date information needed to effectively manage water in a changing climate
• The role of education in public understanding of the importance of water to our way of life in Canada should be recognized and formally supported
• Water must be recognized as a human right integral to security and health
• A collaborative water governance model should be supported to holistically managing watersheds
• Governments at all levels must recognize the importance of groundwater, understand and value its role in creating a sustainable future for Canada
• Develop coordinated long-term national strategies for sustainably managing water in the face of climate change
• Canada, in association with provincial, territorial and Aboriginal governments, should fully articulate and actively promote a new Canadian water ethic
• Create a non-statutory national water commission to advance policy reform and to champion the new Canadian water ethic

For the full report, please visit Water Security in the Reports section of this website.

- 30 -

From the desk of:

Simon Fraser University
Public Affairs/Media Relations (PAMR)
778.782.3210    www.sfu.ca/pamr

Media Contacts:

Martin Livingston, BreakThrough Communications, 604.657.8234, m.livingston@breakthroughpr.com
Yvonne Chiang, BreakThrough Communications, 604.880.5090, y.chiang@breakthroughpr.com
Dixon Tam, SFU media relations, 778.782.8742, dixont@sfu.ca

At the same time that Canada’s Environment Minister was in Durban, South Africa demonstrating to the world that we were no longer worthy of respect or trust as a nation in matters related to addressing the global climate problem, further evidence of the tragedy of the Harper Government’s climate policy was bubbling to the surface at the annual American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco.

It appears that at the San Francisco meeting an internationally respected Russian researcher announced the discovery of something that rather undermined our Environment Minister’s assessment of the seriousness of the climate change threat. In an exclusive interview with Steve Connor at The Independent, Dr. Igor Semiletov, of the Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, announced that in the 20 years he had been conducting research in the Arctic he has never before witnessed so much methane being released from Arctic seafloors.

Though it does not reside in the atmosphere as long, methane is some 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. One of the great fears of our age is that warming conditions in the Arctic will result in the release of the hundreds of millions of tonnes of methane presently frozen in permafrost or held in place on sea-floors by the cold temperature of Arctic seawater. The concern among scientists is that with the rapid disappearance of the Arctic sea-ice in summer, and rising temperatures across the north, which are already melting the Siberian permafrost, large volumes of trapped methane may be suddenly released into the atmosphere triggering other feedbacks that could in tandem generate runaway temperatures that could alter the fundamental conditions to which life on Earth has adapted.

The thresholds at which such changes might occur are among the most troubling unknowns in climate science. In this context Dr. Semiletov’s observations of dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane bubbling to the surface in the Arctic can hardly been seen as good news.

Dr. Semiletov’s team published a study in 2010 estimating that the methane emissions from his region in Russia were about eight million tonnes a year, but outcomes of the latest research suggest that this work underestimated the on-going effects of warming. In the late summer of 2011 the Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted an extensive survey of some 16,000 square kilometres of sea off the East Siberian coast. Scientists deployed highly sensitive seismic and acoustic instruments to monitor the “fountains” or plumes of methane bubbles rising to the sea surface from beneath the seabed. In a very small area, Semiletov and his team counted more than 100 fountains, or torch-like structures, bubbling through the water column and injecting methane directly into the atmosphere from the seabed. “We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale – I think on a scale not seen before.” Dr. Semiletov explained. “Some plumes were a kilometre or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere – the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal.”

“Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we’ve found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It’s amazing,” Dr Semiletov said. “I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them.”

While Minister Kent may not think that what happens in the Russian Arctic is relevant in Canada the fact is that we have our own Arctic. It is not just Russian permafrost that is melting. A study conducted in the Northwest Territories by Dr. Bill Quinton and his colleagues at Wilfrid Laurier University estimated that permafrost covered 70% of the study area in 1947; 55% in 1970; 53% in 1977; 49% in 2000 and 43% in 2008. At the rate of thaw that occurred between 1947 and 2000, Quinton and his team estimated that permafrost would persist in the study area for 90 years. However at the accelerated thaw rate measured between 2000 and 2008, the data suggests permafrost at the study site may be gone by 2040, or in only about thirty years. And as this permafrost thaws, methane is released.

When Minister Kent attends his next global climate conference, he may wish to pay attention the boiling cauldron of methane we are creating in our own Arctic and what that cauldron might mean to our future and to the future of our planet. While the Minister never stops comforting us with misleading public relations deceits about how little Canada’s greenhouse emissions are compared to the rest of the world, he may wish to note that neither he nor anyone else will be able to hide the impacts of runaway climate change or magically reduce their effects to 2% of our country or its economy.

We are playing with fire here. We shouldn’t have to leave it to boiling ocean cauldrons to tell us that. That is what we count on Environment Ministers to do for us, and for the world. If they won’t play that role, then we don’t need them.

Bob Sandford is the Director of the Western Watersheds Research Collaborative and the author of “Restoring the Flow: Confronting the World’s Water Woes” and “Ethical Water: Learning to Value What Matters Most”, both published by Rocky Mountain Books.

Reposted from Global Times, December 25, 2011

Editor’s Note:

Canada’s withdrawal from the Koyto Protocol has shocked the world and cast a shadow on global efforts at combating climate change. What does the Canadians think of this decision and the protocol? Why did Canada’s emissions schemes fail? Global Times (GT) reporter Gao Lei invited Deborah Harford (Harford), executive director of the Adaptation to Climate Change Team (ACT) at Simon Fraser University, to talk about these issues.

GT: Instead of honoring its commitment by cutting emission level to an average 6% below 1990 level, the country’s carbon emission actually went to the opposite direction. What specifically has gone wrong?

It requires a lengthy transition to move from an economy that is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, such as Canada’s, to one that has a significantly lower carbon footprint. Canada, like the rest of the world, faced two economic recessions in 2000-2002 and 2008-2009, which caused voters to lower climate change as a priority in favor of economic buoyancy. The costs of making the transition required by the Protocol were seen as too great for the average Canadian, and therefore for the government to support, in a democratic political system that was undergoing significant change on an ongoing basis.

Many Canadians were also concerned about the exclusion of developing countries from the Protocol and were hesitant to support it. Canada faced four elections in the first decade of the century featuring a succession of minority governments, so there was no strong leadership to make the transition. Voters were also confused and misled by various effective efforts on the part of climate change deniers to derail progress.

We also face a situation in which development of the emissions-heavy oilsands represents a major economic opportunity in a time in which the country is trying to recover from recession; our current leadership supports this development, although it is the subject of much controversy and concern both within Canada and internationally.

As one response to this, the federal government banked on carbon sequestration for the coal and oil industries as a significant way to reduce emissions, but despite expensive pilot projects in the Prairies, to date none of these projects has been successful and the technology remains unproven.

Overall, we have not seen dynamic leadership at the federal level designed to reduce emissions, and support at this level for climate science and expertise has also rapidly diminished in the last two years, to the major concern of the climate science community, which was previously highly regarded internationally.

GT: The government of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended its withdrawal, saying that the one-size-fits-all Protocol was a mistake by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien and paying the $14 billion fine would be unfair. Some Canadian media outlets also ran stories accusing the Protocol of costing jobs and severely damaging the country’s economy. What’s your opinion on this?

Harford: As mentioned above, Canada’s economy is heavily dependent on natural resources and there is a significant transition to be made, which will likely only become economically attractive if carbon becomes subject to international taxation and regulation that reduces the attractiveness of the resource as a source of profit.

It is quite possible for Canada to transition to a green economy that has a lower carbon footprint and sustains jobs. However, the main sources of carbon are from the transportation sector, heating houses and commercial establishments and from heavy industry.

The car industry, an essential economic sector for eastern Canada where most of Canada’s heavy industry is located, is dependent on the North American market, and with no shift by US auto manufacturers, due to a similar indecisiveness on the part of US federal authorities regarding emissions regulations/carbon taxation, to lower emission vehicles, it has been difficult economically for Canada to go it alone.

Canada and the provinces did introduce incentives for certain regions to become energy efficient, but generally these have been too limited to make a major difference. British Columbia and a number of provinces and US states have planned a cap and trade system for carbon, but to date it has not been implemented.

It is true that it would be expensive for Canada’s industries to meet the Protocol’s demands in the current situation, but with strategic investment, incentives and policy reform, progress on emissions reduction will be possible, and must be achieved. However, the US will inevitable have a big influence depending on how they decide to proceed, given that they are Canada’s biggest trade partner and represent 80 percent of our export market.

GT: Environment Minister Peter Kent claimed that the country can cut its emission better without the Protocol, singling out a self-imposed emission target submitted in Copenhagen in 2009. But considering the fact that the country has failed to lower its emission over the past 14 years, can it fulfill this new target by 2020?

Harford: Individual provinces and major cities are in fact making a lot of progress. For instance, British Columbia has introduced a law and a related tax to reduce carbon by 33 percent from 2007 to 2020, and its biggest city, Vancouver, has vowed to become the greenest city in the world by 2020 and is actively encouraging public transit, cycling and renewable energy from district heating systems.

Ontario has developed a major green energy industry with feed in tariffs to encourage conversion to renewable energy. Quebec also has set a stringent target for carbon cuts by 2020. Canada’s size, and the discrepancies between its provinces and territories in terms of demographics and industry, have to date posed problems for unified approaches, for instance on carbon pricing.
However, according to a new report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), the federal government will need to work with the provinces to introduce new measures including carbon pricing, cap and trade, and domestic offset programs, and to regulate the emissions of sectors it may not have expected to initially, such as the transportation sector.

The report also says that, when coupled with what the provinces are doing, Canada is about halfway to its international target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to 17 percent below 2005 levels, and that it will be able to meet its 2020 targets if it implements measures such as those mentioned above.

GT: Green Party leader Elizabeth May have accused the government of breaking the law for its withdrawal from the Protocol, as the deal was ratified by the House of Commons in 2007, and urged the decision be discussed in the House. But will the decision survive the House?

Harford: It is doubtful that the Canadian Parliament would vote to overturn the decision of the government to drop out of the Kyoto Accord – the Conservative government has a majority in the House of Parliament and would use it to defeat a motion led by the Green Party, which only has one seat.

GT: Australia has already voicing its support to Canada’s decision. It appears that both countries share a similar idea that their carbon emissions are very small compared to big polluters like China, so that it is unfair to demand so much from them while China is “left alone.” However, China, still a developing country, has been arguing that this mindset is an excuse for “rich countries” to avoid their responsibilities. What’s your view on this? Do you think the Protocol should be modified to make it fairer for small emitters regardless “rich” or “poor?”

Harford: The global approach to reducing carbon emissions is a classic case of the ‘Tragedy of the Commons.’ No single jurisdiction is responsible for controlling carbon emissions, so no one takes responsibility, and as a result the world continues to pollute. Ultimately, all of humanity, through their leaders, will have to co-operate as one overall unit if we are to reduce emissions and head off a catastrophe.

The Kyoto Accord was an initial attempt by the developed counties to take that leadership on the moral basis that that group had caused carbon to increase dramatically over the past century and it was appropriate that they take the lead. Unfortunately, that leadership was found wanting.

However, it is now not sufficient for the developing countries to continue to hold back on carbon reduction, because we are getting close to the tipping point beyond which emissions concentration in the atmosphere will render the planet unlivable for the human species. It is vital that all countries work as one global community to agree to a legally binding accord that will reduce carbon significantly by 2030 and by more than 50 percent by 2050. Carbon is the great equaliser. A unit of carbon emitted from Beijing has the same global impact as a unit of carbon emitted from Toronto.

Humanity holds in its hands the seeds of both its own destruction, if it does not act in concert soon, and the ability to cooperate as one single human race and set a new course for lower carbon and restoration of its natural ecosystems. It is now too late to point fingers. It is time for statesmanship and leadership, cooperation and shared vision, of how we can help each other solve this challenge.

Between 1990 and 2009 China increased its carbon footprint by over 200 percent compared with Canada at 20 percent and the US about 8 percent. We are all in this together and can find a solution only through cooperation, and not though nationalistic positions over rich and poor, developing and underdeveloped. The Durban Accord agreed in principle to a fund of up to $100 billion a year by 2020 to assist poorer countries and developing countries to both reduce emissions, and just as importantly, to adapt to a changing climate.

It will be key now to focus on climate adaptation as well as carbon mitigation. It will take much more than 100 years for all the carbon that will be emitted over the next 50 years to work its way through the atmospheric system, and the impacts of the carbon emitted since the onset of the Industrial Revolution has already guaranteed warming well into the 2030s – the impacts are already being felt across the globe and will become increasingly severe. We must therefore develop a global approach to adaptation, regardless of how well the global governance structure deals with carbon reduction, due to the slow progress being made.

WhiteCAP, like BC’s District of Elkford’s plan, is comprehensive in its approach to adaptation planning, premised on preparing for variability and uncertainty; building capacity; building knowledge; building resilience; building partnerships and enhancing sustainability for the well-being of the community. This process is referred to as adaptive capacity, which refers to the ability of a system to adjust to climate change, moderate potential damages, take advantage of opportunities, and cope with consequences.

Research projects that climate change in the Yukon will enhance and/or change the frequency of occurrence of key environmental stresses (forest fires, flooding and weather fluctuations). For instance, with mean annual precipitation anticipated to increase by 14% to 22% by 2050 while winter temperatures rise, snowfall will become more damp and heavy, posing structural challenges such as exceeding the loading capacity of buildings.

A key lesson from WhiteCAP that we would like to highlight here is that institutional capacity (the ability of institutions such as government departments to respond to climate change) is significantly stronger than individual capacity. Institutional responses to environmental stresses have been effective, such as recent improvements to infrastructure, upgrading personnel capacity, and improving the quality/quantity of equipment. However, despite this strong adaptive capacity, rapid and unpredictable changes in climate in the coming years could render such institutional responses less effective.

In light of this, WhiteCAP aims to improve individual capacity to adapt, including augmenting the linkages between institutions and individuals. In Whitehorse, individuals tend to heed evacuation warnings concerning potential forest fires or flooding risks, but require institutional support for knowing where to find shelter and safety. Institutional support through educational programs, and ensuring the community is aware of the benefits associated with city programs such as FireSmart, will be indispensable for future adaptation programs, especially on an individual level.

The WhiteCAP document is not only comprehensive in scope and detail, but also premised on collaboration through partnerships. The plan states that a number of stakeholders will be involved throughout in the development and implementation of adaptation actions, including the City of Whitehorse, the Yukon government, Ta’an Kwäch’än and Kwanlin Dün First Nations, community groups, private sector groups and Yukon College.

This innovative example speaks to good governance, as multiple stakeholders who are impacted by the decisions are actively involved in the process. Importantly, both in water management and adaptation, issues are becoming increasingly complex and beyond the capacity of government. Hence, the rise of governance, as evidenced in the NWT, and in WhiteCAP, as a promising way forward that should not be overlooked by southern jurisdictions in Canada.

Complementing the news scan is the PICS Briefing Note Service. This service provides timely and concise analysis, as well as suggested policy action, on issues related broadly to BC climate change mitigation and adaptation.

This week’s news scan includes:

Research Theme I: The low carbon emissions economy

• What really happened in Durban – and will it be enough to combat climate change?
• Indigenous peoples call for REDD moratorium

Research Theme II: Sustainable communities

• Pedal power study assesses cycling’s climate impact
• California proposes rules to spur clean car growth

Research Theme III: Resilient ecosystems

• Ocean acidification may directly harm fish: study

Research Theme IV: Social mobilization

• Can gaming change the climate change conversation?

Complementing the news scan is the PICS Briefing Note Service. This service provides timely and concise analysis, as well as suggested policy action, on issues related broadly to BC climate change mitigation and adaptation.

This week’s news scan includes:

Research Theme I: The low carbon emissions economy

• Rapid growth in CO2 emissions after the 2008-2009 global financial crisis

Research Theme II: Sustainable communities

• Solar power much cheaper to produce than most analysts realize, study finds
• Transport report launched at United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP17)

Research Theme III: Resilient ecosystems

• Study of wolves will help scientists predict climate effects on endangered animals

Research Theme IV: Social mobilization

• Climate skepticism in media an English-speaking phenomenon
• Canadians want more from feds on climate change

As a student of Community and Regional planning, I have come to learn and appreciate the value and strength of Official Community Plans (OCPs). An OCP is a policy framework for City Council that addresses issues such as housing, transportation, infrastructure, parks, economic development and the natural and social environment. Under the BC Local Government Act section 875, an OCP is “a statement of objectives and policies to guide decisions on planning and land use management, within the area covered by the plan, respecting the purposes of local government”.

In October 2011, we blogged about the District of Elkford, which was recently featured in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) guidebook Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Options. Our first blog on Elkford discussed its holistic communication efforts in mobilizing action on climate change adaptation. Beyond the strength of its communication process, the District was the first municipality in British Columbia to successfully integrate adaptation into its OCP.

As I learned from my interview with the District of Elkford’s Chief Administrative Officer, Corien Speaker, integrating adaptation in the OCP has been a forward-looking achievement because it gives more credibility and legitimacy to adaptation actions. As an OCP is a long-range planning document, typically a 20-year planning horizon, it can outline immediate, medium, and long-term actions for implementation; in other words, a lined-up process and a roadmap on how to achieve targets. One lawyer who assisted in the process remarked that climate change is just another risk that makes communities vulnerable, and if you are not looking long-term, you are not doing a good job for planning and sustainability.

With such a document in place, there is a sound plan, including a set of targets to achieve, which acts as a planning guide for climate change adaptation. Elkford’s chief advantage over other municipalities is that climate change adaptation now becomes a centralized theme in all its planning decisions, an approach which can, among other things, foment a set of robust and comprehensive actions to address climate challenges.

Elkford’s objective is to align actions and policies with adaptation goals. Development by-laws are being revised to develop a higher density community and reduce the operational and delivery costs of utilities. Mapping the District’s aquifer is another action cited in Elkford’s OCP and while it may not happen for several years, it has been listed as an action that can help the district adapt.

As I learned from my interview, the more information you can gather through such activities as aquifer mapping, the better you can plan. Some of the District’s other adaptation actions include the requirement of on-site stormwater management techniques to alleviate flooding risk and adapting municipal by-laws to require low-flow plumbing fixtures for all new buildings to allow for water conservation. The new OCP will ensure consistency in implementation of such actions. Details are available online.

Being featured in the UNFCCC’s guidebook on assessing the costs and benefits of adaptation actions is testament to how committed the district is to climate change adaptation. While it may be some time until the actions of the OCP fully come to fruition, the District’s incorporation of climate change adaptation into the OCP is an impressive feat in and of itself. Adaptation was made relevant at the local level, and a high degree of transparency, participation and accountability has further added legitimacy to the process. I greatly hope that other communities learn from this positive success story, and follow suit on committing to action on one of the greatest challenges we face in the 21st century.